Didn't see a thread up on 'Sherlock' yet. Just watched it -- this modern day Sherlock Holmes. I rather feared this 'update'. While I like Steven Moffat's writing, the idea of a 21st Century Holmes seemed like a really bad idea.

It wasn't. It was quite good. I was glued to the screen. It's not for the kiddies for several reasons (topical), but a good mystery, and both characters really come across as Holmes and Watson. Anyone else watch it? (on this board, I'd guess the answer would be 'yes' ).

I watched it and my expectations were not high. However, I thought it was excellent. The acting was, especially from Holmes and Watson, was very good, and I loved the way the essence of the story was retained while making it very much 21st century and without slavishly following the original plot (which would have been a big mistake).

I wonder if it'll be showing up on PBS over here; I recently saw a preview of coming attractions for PBS's "Masterpiece Mystery" which listed, alongside figures whom I've already seen on it (such as Miss Marple and Inspector Lewis) someone whom host Alan Cumming called "a Sherlock Holmes for our times" - followed by a clip of someone crying "The game is on!" (an obvious echo of Holmes' famous line from the start of "The Adventure of the Abbey Grange"). Could that be a reference to this "Sherlock" series?

I loved it, beautifully acted, and wonderfully shot (and made me all nostalgic-like for old London town).

Ent, I do keep reading that people find Mr. Cumberbatch's Sherlock similar to Matt Smith's Doctor, but I just don't see it, apart from the obvious similarities that have always existed since Hartnell (the Doctor has always been partly written as a kind of Space Sleuth).

The arts put man at the center of the universe, whether he belongs there or not. Military science, on the other hand, treats man as garbage— and his children, and his cities, too. Military science is probably right about the contemptibility of man in the vastness of the universe. Still— I deny that contemptibility, and I beg you to deny it, through the creation of appreciation of art.

dhalgren wrote:I loved it, beautifully acted, and wonderfully shot (and made me all nostalgic-like for old London town).

Ent, I do keep reading that people find Mr. Cumberbatch's Sherlock similar to Matt Smith's Doctor, but I just don't see it, apart from the obvious similarities that have always existed since Hartnell (the Doctor has always been partly written as a kind of Space Sleuth).

As I said, dhal, I didn't know this was penned by Moffat until afterwards, so I wasn't primed to expect similarities. What I noticed were the mannerisms; the sudden, machine gun delivery, almost a stream of conciousness. Cumberbatch looks and sounds differently, of course, but there were times when i found myself thinking that this would make an excellent Dr Who episode.

None of this is a criticism, of Moffat, Cumberbatch (who was excellent in the Last Enemy) or Smith. It was simply a similarity that struck me.

I loved it too. Thought both Benedict Cumberbatch (best name ever?) and Martin Freeman were superb. Not to mention Mark Gatiss!

I get the Doctor Who comparison, though of course Doctor Who was inspired by Sherlock Holmes long before Sherlock was inspired by Doctor Who. However, Sherlock's line and delivery of "Oh, this is Christmas!" was identical to Matt Smith's line in the Vampires of Venice episode.

I also thought the direction was great and the gimmick of text messages and clues popping up on the screen worked really well.

Entmooting wrote:It was surprisingly good. I hadn't realised it was by Stephen Moffat, but was not surprised, considering Holmes's characterization is a dead-ringer for Matt Smith's Doctor.

I think it's more that Holmes and the Doctor are similar characters (in quite a few incarnations-- of both). So there are bound to be similarities. I have never seen this actor before-- he's really good.

I felt it really captured the essence of Sherlock Holmes, despite the changes in time period. It was far truer to the characters than many other takes on Holmes set in the "right period".

And IA with Hobbituk... direction was excellent. I wonder if the second episode (directed by who director Euros Lyn) will be as good. Direction and Editing can really make or break a show (though Lyn was good on Who).

I missed the first episode but picked up the vibes about it. I saw the second episode tonight and it's cracking! Excellent in all sorts of ways and buzzing with energy. As a small concern, I'd say that the frenetic camera work might get annoying in a series but in a single episode it was fine.
Something to look forward to next week certainly.

First episode was better. The second was good, just not as good as the first. The direction on the second was good, but on the first it was outstanding. The 'frenetic camera work' worked well in the first episode. It's the sort of thing that can be a gimmick or can really work depending on the story.

Gungnir wrote:Incidentally, Luinennion, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the BBC's 'Sherlock', if you have managed to see it yet.

"Sherlock" is right up my alley. At this point, I have the books, and Jeremy Brett's Holmes in the excellent and very faithful Granada series. So I'm interested in faithful and respectful new takes. This was why I liked the Robert Downey, Jr. film.

The very idea of an "updated" Sherlock Holmes intrigues me, particularly when made by Steven Moffat, whose other work I'm a big fan of. When the stories were first written, they were set in the present day, in modern London. London's changed since then, so it's fun to see how that would change the characters as well.

I absolutely loved the first episode. It captured everything about Holmes and Watson, blended perfectly with the "updates".

I liked the second episode. I agree with Elmtree. It was good, but not quite the level of the first episode. I thought Watson got a bit of the short shrift -- unlike the intriguing first episode, the second one seemed to pick on him a bit. Still, excellent performances in both episodes, and nice to see in this one Sherlock's fighting ability and affected charm with the ladies.

Well, it was very good indeed except for [spoiler]the fact that we've got to wait until next year to find out what happens!!![/spoiler] and [spoiler]the fact that Moriarty had a touch of the Graham Norton about him.[/spoiler]

Gungnir, I made the Alan Rickman comparison in the opening shot with Sherlock in silhouette. Think it was a lot down to his deep voice and slow, deliberate delivery.

Enjoyed the last episode although I guessed the twist at the end a bit too early (which is very unlike me), so I was expecting it [spoiler]After all, "This is Jim"... how many characters called James could you have in an episode featuring Moriarty?[/spoiler]

One thing is how very important Martin Freeman's Watson is to the success. His weary humanity balances and acts as a commentary to the hyper-reality of Holmes. It's a commonplace to approve of the Watson / Holmes dynamic but I think they have brought something fresh and true to it. The writers seem to have recognised what Freeman could bring to it and worked it into the scripts.
It's as big a pleasure to watch him as to watch Cumberbatch.

Rickman! THAT'S why his voice is so familiar... he does sound like Rickman.

I've watched the third ep, and am currently (on the other computer window) watching it again with the hubby. I loved it.. thought this one was on par with or even better than the first one.

WHEN will the next one's come out?

Oh... it's obvious how this one will conclude...[spoiler] sherlock typed the location- pool-- on his website. Plus that he had the plans. So I figure mycroft will have his folks come in and save the day. Next seaons... whenever that is[/spoiler]

I completely missed what you guessed early, Hobbituk. And I'm usually good at picking those things up (so much so I drive my family nuts because I'll guess in the first ten minutes and announce it to the room). But totally missed this one.

I agree Freeman is very good, though I'd like to see just a little more of the gentlemanly manners Watson had in the books. Not victorian manners, as this is set in modern times, but Watson was not just an everyman (he wasn't, really, though he was "us" more or less in the stories), he was a gentleman.

Missed the second episode last week, but watched the third on PBS tonight. Screenwriters who leave off on cliffhangers should be scratched then flogged with shoelaces. The shoelaces.

Also, what's with the sociopath business? Holmes was certainly a bit short at times, as people tend to be who are more intelligent than most of those around them, but what is this "I don't have a heart" idea?

Otherwise, excellent TV, right up to the non-end.

Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.Luke Skywalker, The Last Jedi

Watched my first episode last night on WNED, A Study in Pink, I have to say I found it truly enjoyable. I found though that Benedict Cumberbatch's preformance reminded my of Jeremy Brett's in his mannerisms. Can't wait till next week.

I finally got to watch an episode and I agree that it is very good. Even my son was hooked and he never likes mysteries.
My one quibble (and this is not exclusively about this show) is that i found the dialogue hard to understand at times. They seem to talk very low and sometimes fast, combine that with the accents, that by themselves, aren't that hard to understand, I had no trouble with the northern accents on "Life on Mars" for instance - but combine them with the music which seems to me to be too loud, drowning out the actors and it was very difficult to understand at times.

I've noticed this on the new Dr Who also.

I tried increasing the volume but it just made the music louder.

Finally went into the audio menu on my tv and turning the base down helped a little.

has anyone else noticed?

A funny aside, when "Life On Mars" was aired by BBC America, they had subtitles so us Americans could understand the northern accents...they weren't needed.

I turn on subtitles Seriously, I sometimes can't easily hear thru the accent, and the MUSIC tends to be way overused and too loud. Is this a British TV thing? Either it didn't used to be (I watched many British TV shows aired on PBS over here, but most are 70s and 80s shows), or my hearing is just a lot worse than it used to be (also a possibility).